Allowed

S.Arvindh v. The Inspector of Police

Madras HC26 Sept 2024/13803/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought anticipatory bail in a matrimonial case involving alleged dowry harassment. Earlier bail was denied due to unrecovered jewels; this was allowed after the complainant admitted recovering the jewels, signaling a change in investigation status and reducing perceived arrest necessity.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail via bond execution and appearance within 15 days before the Judicial Magistrate, subject to daily police visits and investigation cooperation.

S.Arvindh Vs The Inspector of Police — Matrimonial and Divorce | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

CRL OPMD)No.13803 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶4

Date : 26.09.2024

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice B.PUGALENDHI

¶7

CRL OPMD)No.13803 of 2024

¶8

S.Arvindh ... Petitioner/Accused No.1

¶9

Versus

¶10

1.State represented by the Inspector of Police, M.Chatrapatti Police Station, Madurai District. [Crime No.35 of 2024] ...1^st Respondent/Complainant 2.Gayathri ... 2^nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Kathirvelu Senior Counsel for Mr.Prabhu.K. Advocate For Respondent : Mr.B.Thanga Aravind No.1 Government Advocate (CrlSide) For Respondent : Mr.Arul Vadivel @ Sekar No.2 Senior Counsel for Mr.C.Ram Sundar Vijayaraj

¶12

PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS / 438 of Cr.P.C

¶13

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶14

1/9

¶15

CRL OPMD)No.13803 of 2024

¶16

PRAYER :-

¶17

For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.35 of 2024 on the file of the respondent Police.

¶18

ORDER : The Court made the following order :-

¶19

The petitioner is accused No.1 in Crime No.35 of 2024 on the file of the respondent Police registered for the offence under sections 498(A), 406, 506(i) IPC and section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act, has filed this application seeking anticipatory bail. The earlier bail application filed by this petitioner along with his parents namely A2 and A3 in CrlOP(MD)No.7253 of 2024 was partly allowed in favour of the parents and dismissed as against this petitioner / husband. The earlier application filed by the petitioner was dismissed on the ground that around 268 sovereigns of gold jewels, which were gifted during the marriage are still under the custody of the husband and the same is yet to be recovered.

¶20

2.This second application is filed by the petitioner with a specific stand that all the jewels have been taken back by defacto complainant on 06.03.2024 and it has been wrongly projected before this Court that some jewels are with the accused.

¶21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶22

2/9

¶23

CRL OPMD)No.13803 of 2024

¶24

3.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the

¶25

marriage itself was solemnised only on 22.05.2023 and within one year the complaint was lodged due to misunderstanding between the petitioner and the defacto complainant and it is not on account of the dowry harassment as projected by the prosecution in Crime No.35 of 2024.

¶26

4.The learned Senior Counsel has also produced certain photographs and CCTV footages and claimed that the defacto complainant had opened the locker on 06.03.2024 and has taken all her jewels. The complaint was lodged after a month on 03.04.2024 and therefore according to him the complaint is a created one and lodged as an afterthought to make out a case as against the petitioner / accused. The photographs and the video placed before this Court disclose that defacto complainant was maintaining the locker box. This according to the prosecution and the defacto complaint is an old photo, and it was not taken on 06.03.2024 as claimed by the petitioner / accused.

¶27

5.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the defacto complainant has stated

¶28

that the very same photograph was placed before this Court even during the hearing https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶29

3/9

¶30

CRL OPMD)No.13803 of 2024

¶31

of the earlier application but this Court has not accepted it and dismissed the bail application by order dated 25.06.2024 and therefore according to him there is no change in circumstances.

¶32

6.The petitioner is a graduate studied MSW and is running a hotel and a medical shop. The defacto complainant is also a graduate studied MSc(IT). Their marriage was held on 22.05.2023. The complaint was lodged on 03.04.2024. Even in the complaint the defacto complainant has admitted that she went to her husband's house on 06.03.2024, opened the locker in the presence of her relatives and took 287 sovereigns of gold out of 520 sovereigns, which were gifted during the marriage and 268 sovereigns were found missing, and she is said to have questioned the 3^rd accused / her mother-in-law about the missing of jewels, for which she is said to have scolded her to glean the available jewels. However the complaint was lodged after a month on 03.04.2024. In fact on this ground only this Court had earlier dismissed the application as against this petitioner on 25.06.2024 that some of the articles have to be recovered from the petitioner / accused. In order to ascertain the stage of the investigation on this recovery of jewels, this Court directed the respondent police to produce the CD files and also perused the CD file.

¶33

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶34

4/9

¶35

CRL OPMD)No.13803 of 2024

¶36

7.The defacto complainant in her complaint on 03.04.2024 has admitted that she took away 287 sovereigns of gold from the locker. This locker was gifted by the defacto complainant's parents at the time of marriage. According to the defacto complainant, she took the key of the locker from the bed room, opened it and found 287 sovereigns available and 268 sovereigns were missing. She also questioned her mother-in-law / 3^rd accused about the missing of the jewels. Her mother-in-law appears to have scolded her to glean the available jewels. But in her statement she has stated that when she has question her mother in law, she kept mum and did not reply. The initial investigation was conducted in a mechanical manner by recording the statement of the defacto complaint and her relatives on 03.04.2024 and thereafter there was no investigation.

¶37

8.The investigation officer has also issued notice under Section 41(A) of CrPC to the accused and recorded their statement. Though the accused appeared on 24.06.204, 27.06.2024, 04.07.2024 and 05.07.2024 for investigation, on only one occasion the brother of the defacto complainant appeared. There was no proper co-operation from the defacto complainant during such enquiry. The investigation officer has also referred this matter to the Social Welfare Officer and the Social Welfare Officer report is not available. It is recorded that both parties have not co-operated. On 22.07.2024 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶38

5/9

¶39

CRL OPMD)No.13803 of 2024

¶40

the Sridhana articles were handed over by the 2^nd accused to the relatives of the defacto complainant and the inventory was also taken. One Bavanandhan relative of the defacto complainant in his 161(3) CrPC statement states that on 06.03.2024 his son Advocate by name Ramanathan had accompanied the defacto complainant when the jewels were taken from the matrimonial house. After this statement of the said Bavanandhan, another statement was also recorded from the defacto complainant on 29.08.2024 and in this statement the defacto complainant had admitted that the jewels were taken by her on 06.03.2024 in the presence of her Driver and her Advocate Ramanathan. Therefore, it appears that on 06.03.2024 the defacto complainant had taken the jewels from the locker in the presence of the Advocate, who had accompanied her. Even though the Advocate had accompanied her, they did not raise any issue with regard to the missing of jewels on 06.03.2024 and she chose to lodge the complaint after a month on 03.04.2024. This conduct of the defacto complainant raises some doubt on the allegations made by the defacto complainant with regard to the missing of jewels. When the defacto complainant admitted in her statement on 28.04.2024 before the present investigating officer about the presence of the Advocate Ramanathan, which was also stated by Bavanandhan another witness, it is not known why the defacto complainant has not stated so in her complaint dated 03.04.2024.

¶41

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶42

6/9

¶43

CRL OPMD)No.13803 of 2024

¶44

9.The case is still at the stage of investigation. It appears that the present investigating officer was posted in the respondent police station only in the month of August 2024. This case is also arising out of the matrimonial dispute. The accused in his statement has stated something else as against the defacto complainant and her conduct. All these needs to be investigated during the course of investigation

¶45

10.Based on the objections raised by the respondent police and the defacto complainant in the earlier application that the remaining jewels of 267 sovereigns have to be recovered, this Court dismissed the earlier application. After perusal of the CD file, this Court is satisfied that this is a fit case where anticipatory.

¶46

11.The defacto complaint has preferred the complaint within a year from the date of her marriage. She is also having a child born out of the wedlock. The present day generation is giving more importance to the jewels rather than their life. In matrimonial dispute, if the husband and the in-laws are arrested the scope of the reunion of the couple would be spoiled. Considering the nature of offence, the statement of Bavanandham and the statement of the defacto complainant dated 29.08.2024, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail.

¶47

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶48

7/9

¶49

CRL OPMD)No.13803 of 2024

¶50

12.Accordingly, this criminal original petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the Judicial Magistrate No.V, Madurai on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.V, Madurai and on further conditions that:

¶51

i. The petitioner and the sureties shall submit a copy of their Aadhaar Card or any other identity card issued by the Government in proof of their residence address;

¶52

ii. The petitioner shall appear before the respondent police daily for a period of two weeks. The petitioner shall co-operate for the investigation.

¶53

iii. The petitioner shall not misuse the liberty granted to him by indulging in any further offence and shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses. The petitioner shall be available for the trial as well.

¶54

iv. On violation of any of the above conditions by the petitioner, the

¶55

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶56

8/9

¶57

CRL OPMD)No.13803 of 2024

¶58

respondent police shall move an application for cancellation of the anticipatory bail.

sd/26/09/2024

/ TRUE COPY /

26/09/2024

Sub-Assistant Registrar (PA-I/ AD-I ) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

¶63

dsk

¶64

¶65

THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.V, MADURAI

¶66

2 DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, MADURAI.

¶67

3.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

¶68

M.CHATRAPATTI POLICE STATION, MADURAI DISTRICT.

¶69

4.THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

¶70

+1 CC to M/s.K.PRABHU, Advocate ( SR-10349[I] dated 23/08/2024 )

¶71

ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.13803 of 2024 Date :26/09/2024 RK (26/09/2024) 9P / 6C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023

¶72

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶73

9/9

S.Arvindh v. The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Arvindh v. The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M. Sathiyamoorthy Vs the Proprietor

Karuppusamy, Vs K.Vellaisamy

K. Kalaichamy Vs the Presiding Officer

K Sangilipandi alias Sangili Pandi Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Saronraj @ Nagaraj Vs The Inspector of Police

A.M.Ganesh Vs M.S.Sangeetha